In which case you would wholeheartedly agree that if the Sunday Times article is true and there were three other PED failures that these would represent new test failures that hadn’t been previously taken into account? In which case if the Sunday Times is correct and they each failed a number of tests they are in big trouble.
All tests after after February 2015 were negative. The subsequent tests mentioned in the Times article showed the levels of nandrolone decreasing. There is nothing further to answer in regard to the nandrolone findings, the follow up investigation is in regards to perjury allegations from the farmer who is also accused of trying unsuccessfully to extort money from Frank Warren.
OK, so if all tests after 2015 were negative according to the UKAD case you must agree that if there are other positive tests they should now be taken into account. As for the levels of nandrolone decreasing are you trying to tell me that the levels were so high in the original fail that the three subsequent fails were lower than the original fail? Wow, that must have been some feast on wild boar. Maybe Tyson should replace Adam Richmond on Man vs Food. It is also relevant that the increase in nandrolone levels from eating large amounts of uncastrated wild boar lasts for hours, not days, not weeks and certainly not months. It is laughable that you should state that there is nothing further to answer regarding nandrolone. Are you not interested that they each reportedly failed multiple tests that apparently were not taken into account? I am, and lots of other people would be if they knew about it. Did this farmer use a psychic to find out that Tyson was being accused of failing a test for exogenous nandrolone and use the yellow pages to get in touch with him in order to pretend that he farmed uncastrated wild boar so they could use it as an excuse? Come on, not even J K Rowling would come up with such a magical excuse. They used Carefoot's statements as a defence in their case. You can call him a liar as much as you like but he has admitted to writing false statements, it has been agreed that the statements were signed and sent to UKAD and it has also been agreed that he didn't receive any money. I hope the police do investigate and if the farmer is guilty of trying to extort money then I hope he is charged. However there still needs to be an explanation as to whether or not his statements are true in respect of the the supply of wild boar which was a key part of Tyson's defence.
Hopefully this will amount to nothing and Fury will be allowed to fight on. Hopefully covid19 crises will subside. Hopefully we get Fury-Joshua in 2021 (2020 seems unrealistic now). I think all decent boxing fans will agree here.
Hearn needs to fulfill his PPV quota. He knows he's taken a lot of liberties making Whyte a PPV headliner. Probably salivating at the thought of Whyte being gifted the WBC belt, and then going on a Wilder like run of easy mandatory defences (on PPV each time). That sorts Sky out for him and placates the British casual fans, then he can concentrate on AJ building up DAZN. Aside from the AJ Fury megafight, Fury is a big inconvenience to Hearn.
Agreed, I hope the only thing that comes out of this is that people will stop talking crap about "it was only elevated levels, he wasn't guilty, he's my hero!" and accept that he was guilty of doping and also didn't;t give all his purse to charity etc. Tyson has had three good victories, including the stupid draw, and it would be great to see him fight AJ, Usyk, Whyte, Dubois etc.
It was elevated levels, Tony, it clearly states that in the UKAD statement. The rest is something you have fabricated out of a news story which relates to the original case. Do you have proof he didn't give his purse to charity or is that something else you have decided to elaborate?
I think all the top fighters are on PEDs so I always regard these cases as 'very very likely' that the substances detected were because the fighter deliberately took them and failed to mask them. But there's always been something a little 'off' with this case, the first time around, because it was never rightly explained why Fury was informed of being charged with an offence some 16 months after the fact. It seemed to coincide conveniently with Fury having recently become hugely unpopular due to comments he made on various things. And at a time when the media had been given a very attractive alternative celebrity 'world heavyweight champion' in the shape of AJ. All of which could be pure coincidence, of course. But if it's re-opened and pressed again now (and some in the media seem very intent on making this something big again) - a case that was already played out and settled 2 years ago - it will make me wonder if there really is something sinister going on.
Fury hadn't 'recently' become hugely unpopular. He'd been saying all the anti-gay/abortion/women/Jews taking over the world stuff' for years. His drug test fail came out just before he ended up not fighting for years with his alleged mental health problems. If we want to talk about strange coincidence, mine would be the timing of Fury's mental illness to coincide with the time period you may expect a drug ban to take. Fury's comments were, if anything, dragged up when he became more high profile. (i.e. fighting Klitschko on Sky Box Office for the world title rather than fighting Joey Abell on Channel Five.)
Yes. But no one cared much before he beat Klitschko. He wasn't hugely unpopular before then for the simple reason know one really cared, he was quite irrelevant. This is illustrated by how the ripples caused by his interview with Oliver Holt weeks prior to the Klitschko win were quite minor, until the media at large magnified and repeat it all AFTER he won. Yeah, I think you've mentioned that before. Exactly.
So you're saying that when someone becomes significantly more famous that previous dubious comments they've made come to the fore? Tell me, if a largely unknown priest said something like 'don't like gays - they should be shot,' in a tweet very similar to what Tyson Fury has tweeted, do you wonder, perhaps, if you could use the force of your intellect to tell us whether you reckon that may become more newsworthy if said priest became the Pope?
You're perhaps trying to be sharply sarcastic but if you're looking for an argument you've completely failed to focus your attack here on what I've stated. It seems we're both in agreement on the point that his 'unpopular' opinions came to the fore when he became significantly more famous. So why the silly snarky tone (again), Tony ?
I mean, if you want to use that analogy, tell me ("by force of your intellect") how a largely unknown priest could be hugely unpopular ? You can't be hugely unpopular while being largely unknown. He becomes hugley unpopular when he become Pope.
Of course, maybe in the world according to TonyHayers, vast armies of decent people always depised Tyson Fury (for tweeting 'gays should be shot', of course), they just didn't know of him yet .....
